How Long to Reach 10th Level

[Hussar]

Well, that could simply be a reflection of trends in speed. Six months to hit 10 levels probably applies to people in a certain situation - I'm thinking those in school where longer campaigns are not always feasible but they can bump every two weeks, pretty regularly. 12 months is probably another bubble because I think a lot of people level up about every 4 sessions, or so. Seven to nine is an oddity, simply because it's such an odd length. To level up 10 levels in 8 months means you're bumping at odd numbers of sessions. Bit wahoonie shaped.

 

[ren1999]

That's easy, the party has to play 10 modules to make it to 10th level.

My Dungeons & Dragons Crude Javascript Hybrid Game: A 3rd Level Party Versus The Yellow Creeper kira3696.tripod.com/CombatTracker.rar

 

[Yora]

It's not easy. How long is a module?

Is Savage Tide a module? Is Orc and Pie?

 

[Tovec]

Should? Really?

Should. Yes really.

My point mostly was that 2 hours is really short. I already pointed out that I expect to hit level 10 in about 6 months of play but with quadruple the amount of play time each session.

I think 2 hours should not be the yardstick by which the question is judged. Neither do I think there needs to be an answer. I think it is and should be subjective by group. Some people play one encounter a month, but play all night. Others will run weekly games at 2 hours a piece for 18 years. It isn't something that can be judged objectively that way.

HOWEVER, if the question is @2hours what should we expect? Well then my answer still stands. If this question and response is going to determine where they put their resources or where they EXPECT people to be be playing the game then I think it is unfair to those of us who don't play 2 hour games or don't play games lasting 4-12 months.

 

[The Red King]

Should. Yes really.

My point mostly was that 2 hours is really short. I already pointed out that I expect to hit level 10 in about 6 months of play but with quadruple the amount of play time each session.

I think 2 hours should not be the yardstick by which the question is judged. Neither do I think there needs to be an answer. I think it is and should be subjective by group. Some people play one encounter a month, but play all night. Others will run weekly games at 2 hours a piece for 18 years. It isn't something that can be judged objectively that way.

HOWEVER, if the question is @2hours what should we expect? Well then my answer still stands. If this question and response is going to determine where they put their resources or where they EXPECT people to be be playing the game then I think it is unfair to those of us who don't play 2 hour games or don't play games lasting 4-12 months.

I agree. We play almost every week, but it can take us up to 2 hours just to get going. OR----- Sometimes we play for a solid 6 hours. But we never just play for 2. Its very chaotic, so pidgeon holeing it to one style is a little hard.

 

[Ratskinner]

Should. Yes really.

My point mostly was that 2 hours is really short. I already pointed out that I expect to hit level 10 in about 6 months of play but with quadruple the amount of play time each session.

I think 2 hours should not be the yardstick by which the question is judged. Neither do I think there needs to be an answer. I think it is and should be subjective by group. Some people play one encounter a month, but play all night. Others will run weekly games at 2 hours a piece for 18 years. It isn't something that can be judged objectively that way.

HOWEVER, if the question is @2hours what should we expect? Well then my answer still stands. If this question and response is going to determine where they put their resources or where they EXPECT people to be be playing the game then I think it is unfair to those of us who don't play 2 hour games or don't play games lasting 4-12 months.

Between this and the "one hour adventure" article, it sounds to me like they are playing with what the smallest unit of playing time is for a session. I think this is a good thing. People who play longer sessions can just stack some multiple of this smallest unit together. However, if they shoot for designing around a 4 hour "typical" session, that means that 2 hour groups are fighting a much steeper uphill battle.

Other than calculating XP awards or budgets for monsters, I'm not sure what they're shooting for with the longer term advancement stuff. I mean, if you want to slow or speed advancement in your game, award some fraction or multiple of the listed XP for each critter or encounter. Just use the book values for budgeting purposes. (I assume that they will keep some kind of practice like this for 5e.)

 

[DEFCON 1]

People who play longer sessions can just stack some multiple of this smallest unit together.

I don't even think this is a necessity. I suspect that some groups can/will just take their time in each section of an adventure, rather than just doing more of these units per session.

If a 2-hour adventure is assumed (for the sake of argument) to include 40 minutes of exploration, 40 minutes of interaction, and 40 minutes of combat... that same adventure will be run by groups who will expand the interaction to 60 minutes or 120 minutes just through longer conversations, more description, and expanded personality details. Exploration? Same thing. Combat? Ditto.

Just because the baseline adventure will be built with a foundation that says you CAN get through the whole thing in 2 hours... it doesn't therefore decree that you can't go longer with it (or even shorter with it if that's how your group rolls.) Any group will expand or compress an adventure to fit the time they need to fill. The same way it's always been in D&D.

 

[Tovec]

Between this and the "one hour adventure" article, it sounds to me like they are playing with what the smallest unit of playing time is for a session. I think this is a good thing. People who play longer sessions can just stack some multiple of this smallest unit together. However, if they shoot for designing around a 4 hour "typical" session, that means that 2 hour groups are fighting a much steeper uphill battle.

Okay that is a completely different design goal and honestly a completely different question they could be asking to fulfill that goal.

Q: What is the minimum amount of time you would sit down and play DnD
1: 30 mins
2: 1H
3: 2H
4: 4H
5: 6H
6: 8H
7: 10H
8: 12H
9: 12H+

I could understand saying 2 hours if we are talking about the minimum. But the question was how long, at 2 hours a go, should it take to get to level 10. That is a radically different question and deserves a different response. As I have never successfully played 2 hours at a time, weekly or otherwise, I can only approximate based on what I have played - which I did.

On a side note, I'm sure they are going to make the effort to accommodate me, the 2 hour people and the years long people. The problem I foresee is them putting most of their time accommodating the 2h/week for 4-6 week people and ignoring the rest of us.

I don't want a new level every 3 hours. I don't I don't I don't. I can barely imagine getting a new level every 1.5 sessions (or 2). Getting a new level every 3 sessions seems quick to me, magnify that feeling if the sessions are only 2 hours long. That will mean I'm gaining a level for very little work.

Also, on another note, this is DnD. I want it to take AT LEAST as long as an RPG video game. The problem is, with this question, that I'm playing a session that is shorter than my game of clue, monopoly or poker.
For me, DnD =/= a game of cards and the length of a game of cards shouldn't be the default they put their time working on.

 

[AntiStateQuixote]

My current 4e game started at level 1. We play ~weekly for 4 - 6 hours per session. We just completed session session 18. The party hit level 7 after session 16.

5 hours/session * 16 sessions / 6 levels gained = ~13.3 hours/level gained which seems about right to me. That's enough time to play the character and experience the new goodies at each level without being such a slow grind that you feel like you're never getting anywhere.

I could see this in a whole different light if we played only 2 hours/week, but if I could only play 2 hours/week I'd probably find a different hobby or group.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think 2 hours should not be the yardstick by which the question is judged.

If that is the time that most people can dedicate to the game, it is a very useful baseline.

Neither do I think there needs to be an answer.

If you're designing a game for possible casual consumption, it is an essential question. How much are you going to ask of folks in order to experience the big things D&D has to offer?

I think it is and should be subjective by group. Some people play one encounter a month, but play all night. Others will run weekly games at 2 hours a piece for 18 years. It isn't something that can be judged objectively that way.

Just because there exists a baseline minimum doesn't mean that WotC will consider that the only, exclusive, unqiuely viable experience. It just means that D&D has to be able to fit into that experience. It can be bigger.

This is extra-true for a modular game.

If this question and response is going to determine where they put their resources or where they EXPECT people to be be playing the game then I think it is unfair to those of us who don't play 2 hour games or don't play games lasting 4-12 months.

Unfair? What, exactly, are they taking away from you by designing the game with the possibility of 2-hour D&D built in?

It is not like D&D is going to come with an egg timer that dings at the two hour mark and makes you stop playing. It is not like WotC doesn't realize that the longer that people play their game, the better.

I don't quite understand how this hurts anyone except in the most hypothetical of ways.